“For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb” -Psalms 139:13
Obama’s words at the Notre Dame commencement were no great surprise. He was, as usual, full of platitudes about “holding hands,” “dialogue,” and “coming together.” No doubt much of what he said was appealing to those on both sides of the issue. There are many who find comfort where they may, even in empty words that change absolutely nothing. But, for all Obama’s pontifications on openness and dialogue, to genuinely reflect upon the horror of the very act of abortion renders simple “dialogue” and acknowledgement of our differences as ridiculous. How does one meet in the middle upon such an issue? Where is the middle ground on life and death?
As far as dialogue goes (linked here):
It’s easy to ramble on about how everyone should be civil and learn to respect each others’ viewpoints, when your side of the debate is sitting on a Supreme Court decision that renders the opposing position illegal.
Indeed. It is very easy to sound magnanimous and even conciliatory toward those in opposition to you when it is in your power to keep them there. Obama is a genuine self-aggrandizer; he loves and excels at rhetorical language that makes everyone feel good about themselves. He has mastered the art of sounding like he cares. But (as Steele said), his actions speak louder than his words.
Again, I ask: How does one find common ground on this?
Meanwhile, does it not strike anyone else as particularly ironic that an elderly priest, praying the rosary in protest of the abortion president being honored at the university of Our Lady, being arrested and carried away from a CATHOLIC INSTITUTION?
Also, that the original Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey, was herself arrested for protesting this travesty?
For a far more nausea-inducing brand of irony, how about Obama wearing a robe with a prayer inscribed to the Virgin Mary, patroness of the unborn, upon his breast? And this picture, of Obama raising his hand while conferring a blessing upon the graduates (no doubt thinking that the power of blessing was from himself and not from God):
Were I someone who did not believe in a Divine Creator, I believe that I would still be somewhat troubled by donning a robe dedicated to the mother of that Creator, if my positions happened to be so diametrically opposed to everything for which they stood. Even were I a “person of faith,” but not necessarily Catholic, and held pro-abortion positions to the extreme degree, I can’t but help thinking that the small, self-preservation portion of my being would flair up an alarm at so brazenly flying in the face of such a core teaching of Catholic Christianity. Were I wrong, the thought of being held to account for my hand in enabling the horrific deaths of millions of innocent babies would, in effect, chill me to the core.
Take comfort in these words from yesterday’s gospel:
Jesus said to his disciples:
“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father,
the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,
he will testify to me.
And you also testify,
because you have been with me from the beginning.
“I have told you this so that you may not fall away.
They will expel you from the synagogues;
in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you
will think he is offering worship to God.
They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.
I have told you this so that when their hour comes
you may remember that I told you.”
And another excellent link:
Obama’s Fuzzy Logic, by Matt Spivey:
President Obama continued this disconnected rhetoric by urging this generation to “decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.” Strangely, though, the president seems okay destroying one of God’s other creations. Only in a liberal’s mind would saving the planet carry more value than saving a life.
President Obama not only caused great confusion with his words for this generation, his moral relativism should cause great concern for people of all generations. He assumes that truth is relative because we may all passionately hold beliefs that are diametrically opposed.
When Obama advocates for all opinions and deems all perspectives valid, he is implying that no ultimate truth exists. It’s as if one person can say that stealing is okay while another condemns it, and they will just have to agree to disagree. There is an inherent wrongness in stealing that cannot be avoided. The abortion controversy is also one of those moral discussions with no gray area in which a support for innocent life and a support for the destruction of innocent life can co-exist.
When we reach a point in which anything goes, everything will. According to the president, as long we feel strongly enough, we can never be wrong. Unfortunately, terrorists would make the same argument. The protection of innocent life and the preservation of the inalienable right to life are not to be bargained by lawyers, grandstanded by politicians, or debated by emotional activists. Life is life. Morality is morality. There is no wavering or reinterpretation of this.
It all does boil down to that. Is there objective truth? Moral relativism–it will be the ruin of this nation.